And Then There Is Beto

[stevenkesslar]

I  just had to post this.

It is toward the end of a serious but uninteresting article about which Presidential candidates might in fact be running for Veep.

When I got to the part about Beto, I just could not stop laughing my ass off.  

Sorry to all you Beto fans out there.  But it is wicked funny.

VEEPSTAKES 2020: WHICH DEMOCRATS ARE SECRETLY RUNNING FOR SECOND PLACE?

Quote

Beto O’Rourke

Some politicians are empty suits, but Beto O’Rourke avoids the problem by dressing casual. As a vice presidential pick, Beto would bring no diversity credentials or experience, but he might help to woo the swing voters who were waiting to be told that their country is foundationally racist and that he’ll take their guns. Beto curses a lot, because he’s authentic, or, as Beto might put it, fucking authentic. So far, though, it hasn’t catapulted him to the lead, or much beyond 10th place in the polls. On the other hand, Beto might be a good vice president to bring in midway through a term so that no one tries to impeach the actual president.

 

[TotallyOz]

Beto would be good for Texas which I do think can turn Democrat.

However, I want to see a woman on the ticket in some way.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

Beto would be good for Texas which I do think can turn Democrat.

However, I want to see a woman on the ticket in some way.

Agreed.  

He was one of about half a dozen Senate candidates I sent money to every month last Fall.  Ideologically, he is a good fit for Texas Democrats.  Which is to say he is a moderate.

Interestingly, almost all my "winners" last Fall were on the House side - like every single Democrat in California running in a relatively suburban district to take a seat from a Republican.  Almost all my "losers" were moderate Senate candidates - O'Rourke, McCaskill, Heitkamp.  The one exception in the "loser" column was Amy McGrath, a moderate veteran who ran for a House seat in Kentucky in 2018 and lost.  She'll be McConnell's opponent for US Senate in 2020.

My point is that it seems pretty clear there is huge open space for moderation in "purple"  (you could say suburban) areas of blue states like California.  In a state like Texas, where there are a lot of those "purple" areas (again, you could say suburbs like around Houston and Dallas) a moderate Democrat can win eventually, I think. 

In red states that are predominantly rural or small town, forget it.  As much as 2018 was mostly a blue year, it was also an incredibly polarized year.  White men in states like Missouri and North Dakota said pretty clearly, "We don't want your God damn moderation.  Take your center-left Democratic women like Heitkamp and McCaskill and shove em up your ass."  (That's actually being generous, I think.  I know a Republican who kept insisting Claire McCaskill was one of the most liberal members of the US Senate.  In fact, she was one of the most conservative Democrats, which she had to be to win in Missouri.)

McGrath will be interesting to watch in 2020.  She's an unseasoned candidate, running against an extremely shrewd and vicious political animal, McConnell, who is wildly unpopular even with his own constituents.  It's as red as red states get, so I don't have much hope for her.  That said, if there is a strong wave and if a lot of moderate women swing Democrat, it's possible that the women running for Senate seats in both Kentucky and Texas could win.  Which is why I think having a very energizing woman (that's spelled W-A-R-R-E-N) at the top of the ticket could turn out to be a plus.

As far as Beto himself goes, I'm now glad he is not running for Senate.

I was very disappointed when Beto announced for President.  The question last Fall was whether Beto was going to be the next John Tower, who worked very hard over several election cycles to become the first Republican Senator elected from Texas in a long time.  There were lots of older Texans that compared Beto to Tower. (Tower ran against LBJ when he was a Senator and lost.  Then the seat opened when LBJ became VP, and Tower won that special election.  He was the first Republican Senator elected in Texas in almost a century.)

I think if Beto had doubled down and run against Sen. Cornyn in 2020, he could have won.  Had he doubled down and ran again after a close call last Fall, that would have in and of itself been a way of saying, "I will persist."  People love underdogs and fighters.

I think the Beto brand is now toast.  That's partly what that quote above says to me.  He's just not going to be taken seriously anymore.  Mostly because it seems like it was all an exercise in ego for him.  He just had to run for President, even though his failure seemed not only predictable, but certain.

Edited September 23, 2019 by stevenkesslar
typo

[TotallyOz]

I have family in Kentucky and I'll be watching that race closely.

I don't think Beto's brand is now toast. I think the national spotlight is a good thing for him and will get him more noticed in the political area.  People have short memory and I think he still has a career in politics. And, while he may not be on the ticket this go around, I do hope he gets enough spotlight to get some good appointment when the next Democrat is elected as President.

I think this go around, there were just too many. If the field wasn't so big initially, I think he night have stood out more. He is not going away.

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I have family in Kentucky and I'll be watching that race closely.

 

Me too.  Like I said, I was sending her money every month last year for her House race.  It's the only House race I gave to outside California, and I did it mostly because her message and her persona was so fresh and likable. 

Her husband is a Republican, and she's a bad ass warrior who bombed bad guys and fought to be one of the first women pilots.  She seems like a poster child for how we get beyond the current obstructionism.  And since McConnell is credited by many as being the architect of that obstructionism, starting from the night Obama was elected in 2008, taking him out could be a twofer.  Out with Mr. Gridlock, in with Ms. Compromise.

That said, one thing she has in common with Beto is there's a sloppiness to both of them, or perhaps better stated a lack of seasoning.  They are both making avoidable errors.  None of these errors are fatal.  But in a place like Texas or Kentucky, where there pretty much is no margin for error for a Democrat, you just can't afford to make many mistakes.

Did Mitch McConnell Recruit His Opponent?

I always enjoy reading the author of that piece, AB Stoddard, who is a pragmatic centrist.  If McGrath is rubbing her wrong, that's not a good sign.

That said, this surprised me:

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/politics/2019/five-state-prescription-drug-survey-annotated-questionnaire-KY.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00335.003.pdf

That was one of five state polls that came out last week from the same pollster, Fabrizio Ward LLC, that showed Trump behind Biden from anywhere from 4 to 9 points in four key states:  Colorado (9 points), Maine (6 points) Arizona (5 points), North Carolina (4 points).  Kentucky was the only one of the five where Trump is ahead, by double digits.  This poll shows Trump whopping Biden by 53 to 41 in Kentucky.  So this is mostly bad news for Trump.  And if the nominee were Warren or somebody else, recent polls show she's doing about as well as Biden in these head to heads with Trump.   If Trump loses Arizona or North Carolina, it is of course game over.

The really surprising thing is that in all five states, voters are saying they are more inclined to dump the Republican incumbent than to keep them.  All five incumbents (McSally, Collins, Tillis, Gardner, McConnell) have low favorable ratings.  So I think it's fair to say they are all vulnerable.  And McConnell has the worst numbers of all five.  62 % of people in Kentucky said they want a "new person" in the Senate seat.  Only one third say they think McConnell deserves re-election.  Those numbers are significantly worse than for the other four Republican Senate incumbents.

And the most surprising thing is that in the same poll that shows Trump clobbering Biden in Kentucky, McConnell and McGrath are essentially tied, 47/46.  If you assume Stoddard's article is at least partly correct, and McGrath got off to a rocky start, it is not bad news that she is still in a statistical toss up. By all rights in this political environment and in a red state like Kentucky it seems like she should just be a lamb waiting for slaughter.

So just like Beto probably benefited from a blue wave and the unpopularity of Ted Cruz last year, as well as his own freshness and enthusiasm, McGrath might have the same shot in 2020 in Kentucky, for many of the same reasons.

So now I will circle back around to Beto and close with this point.  What may end up helping both of them in the long run is that even if they have flaws or make fumbles, they are both likable people.  Having watched both of them for about a year now, I'd say Amy wears better than Beto.  She comes across as a woman that would do anything for her kids and her country.  I still think Beto comes across as having a big ego.  That said, I agree with you that there is nothing that has happened so far that precludes him making a comeback in the future.

[stevenkesslar]

Interesting article.

I've now completely moved this thread off Beto.  But I'm posting it here because it involves a discussion of the same swing states discussed above where both the Presidency and the Senate could be up for grabs.  It discusses a strategy of winning those states and The Presidency funded by rich women, and based on organizing women and people of color.

These wealthy Democratic women have a plan to beat Trump at his own game

The progressive group Way to Win was co-founded by an heiress to a Texas oil fortune.

Quote

Most gatherings of the rich are not like the Way to Win, network of deep-pocketed progressive donors, run almost entirely by women, who don't fit the typical mold of other big-money political givers.

The network, which recommends where donations should be directed, has placed more than $30 million to political nonprofit groups and candidates since its founding in 2017 and plans to expand on that significantly to at least $50 million in next election cycle, while sticking to its approach of remaking the Democratic Party by sending money to small local groups run predominantly by people of color and women.

At a conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday, the group is unveiling its Plan to Win in 2020, shared early with NBC News, which explicitly rejects the focus many Democrats have on beating President Donald Trump by winning back working-class white voters in the Rust Belt. Instead, the plan favors expanding turnout among minorities and other Democratic-leaning demographic groups in rapidly diversifying states like Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida.

"We can win the White House without taking the Midwestern states that slipped in 2016, and where demographic trends are unfavorable," the plan says, laying out a strategy to support grassroots organizing efforts the group hopes will help Democrats win everything from school boards to the White House by bringing new voters into the process.

"You have a president who is attacking birthright citizenship, putting people in cages — if these don't persuade you that he is not the right person to lead the country, then I don't know what persuasion campaign will," said Way to Win co-founder Tory Gavito. "He's got a base mobilization strategy, which means we need to, too."

Hunt-Hendrix said it's fine if other groups want to chase swing voters, but added that she wants to focus on getting fans to the stadium instead of convincing people to switch teams.

"It's a missed opportunity when we use elections to focus on people who are not sure what they stand for," she said, "rather than people who really do believe in progressive priorities, but have not been brought into the political process."

 

[TotallyOz]

Texas will soon be Democrat. However, when I was there visiting family, I was shocked at the number of Latino voters that I talked to who voted for Trump and are die hard Republicans. It seems to be most a religious thing to me but I am not sure. However, talking to them was eye opening for me. It is like gay people voting for Trump, I don't get it. But, I have friends that did. I know most are not a one issue voter but it seems to be that someone who goes against your entire community is not someone you would vote for.

[RA1]

6 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Texas will soon be Democrat. However, when I was there visiting family, I was shocked at the number of Latino voters that I talked to who voted for Trump and are die hard Republicans. It seems to be most a religious thing to me but I am not sure. However, talking to them was eye opening for me. It is like gay people voting for Trump, I don't get it. But, I have friends that did. I know most are not a one issue voter but it seems to be that someone who goes against your entire community is not someone you would vote for.

Say it ain't so Joe, say it ain't so.  Latinos are smart so why should they not vote Republican?  Some think if Texas were to go blue it would be because liberals from CA are moving there to escape oppressive taxation.  Why don't they think there is more to it than that?

Best regards,

RA1

[stevenkesslar]

11 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Texas will soon be Democrat. However, when I was there visiting family, I was shocked at the number of Latino voters that I talked to who voted for Trump and are die hard Republicans. It seems to be most a religious thing to me but I am not sure. However, talking to them was eye opening for me. It is like gay people voting for Trump, I don't get it. But, I have friends that did. I know most are not a one issue voter but it seems to be that someone who goes against your entire community is not someone you would vote for.

I've wondered about that, too.  In particular, I have wondered about the difference between Mexican Americans in California, and Mexican Americans in Texas.  You could also throw Florida in, but then it gets more complicated because you get the older conservative Cubans, and now the anti-Socialist refugees from countries like Venezuela.

The Texas Hispanic Vote Is No Guarantee for Democrats. Here’s Why.

That's not a particularly good article, but I haven't found a particularly good article that explains the differences between Texas and California.  There's two factors that are obvious ones to me.  One is social conservatism, which this article talks a lot about.  The other is perceptions of economic opportunity, which this article does not really discuss.  Suffice it to say that Mexicans who immigrate to America seeking opportunity tend to like Republicans like Schwarzenegger (also an immigrant) and even Trump, to the degree that these Republicans are perceived as speaking the language of universal economic opportunity.

I've seen polls (this is years ago) that say when you control for income, Latin Americans are essentially White.  In my mind, why would a Mexican American be different than an Italian American was, or a Polish American was, when they had immigration waves a century or more ago, and were viewed by many as the trash at the bottom of the ladder?  For that matter, how about German Americans or Scottish Americans - Trump's ancestry?    (Let's leave Melania out of this.)

One obvious difference is skin color.  My hunch is that the darker a Latino you are, the more likely you are to be a Democrat.  I was surprised when I started going to Mexico and watching TV there to learn Spanish, and noticed that most Mexicans on TV are somewhat Whiter than most Mexicans in a grocery store.  So they have their own thing with skin color. 

And of course, at least in the 21st century, Mexico is no longer a one party state.  There are a variety of political ideologies.  So I assume when they immigrate, they bring their political leanings along. 

If anything, my bias would be that immigrant Mexicans moving to seek economic opportunity might be marginally more conservative and/or business-oriented.  If so, that's an obvious reason why we should be welcoming them, not building walls.  I've wondered whether part of the difference between Texas and California is what part of Mexico people immigrated from.  Some areas are more liberal, some more conservative.  But I've never seen anything that suggests that is a factor.

The thing that I think is huge is how Mexicans are treated when they arrive.  The turning point in California was under Governor Wilson, when the perception was that the Republican Party went to war with Mexican immigrants.  If you buy that (I do), it explains why most Mexican Americans in California view the Republican Party as hostile.

The difference in Texas and Florida can be partly understood this way:

That's Jeb, not George.  By all accounts, Jeb speaks Spanish much better than his brother.  Of course, it helps to have a wife from Guanajuato.  That's political symbolism rather than substance.  I don't follow state politics in Texas or Florida very closely.  But I think it's fair to say that Republicans in Texas and Florida have not done stupid shit like Republicans in California did, that were perceived as all out declarations of war against immigrants.  In Florida in 2018, DeSantis had a Latina running mate.  Rick Scott can speak Spanish almost as poorly as I do.  Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Nelson just sounded old, White, and English speaking.

The interesting theory is this:  as goes California, so goes the nation.  That has not been an idea I would ever bet against.  And there is reason to think that Trump is to the United States as former Governor Pete Wilson was to California.  Meaning, these are Republicans who are defining their party as being hostile to the basic interests of Mexican Americans - unlike the Bushes, for example.  There is some evidence from 2018 that Mexican Americans in places like Texas are taking it that way.  (DeSantis cleverly ran around that problem, I think, in various ways.)

One way I think we could win a fight on decriminalizing prostitution is by being really loud and factual about the fact that the real focus should be on the trafficking of women and kids, for both sex and labor.  And if it were me, I'd start by screaming loud every day that Donald Trump has declared war on just about every Latina woman and child, be they from Mexico or the Triangle countries. 

We don't need to get into decriminalizing prostitution here.  My point in bringing it up is that I think the political implications of Trump's war on Latin women and kids could be broad, deep, and enduring.

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[MiguelMichel]

I'd do him though.

[TropicalBeach]

The phenomenon of Latinos supporting Republicans when that party is depicting them as criminal immigrants stealing jobs from (implied: "white") Americans is puzzling to me too. While I'm no expert on Latin America, and I know it's not a monolith, from what I've gleaned, there is a distrust of government + social conservatism among Latinos in the US, both immigrants and born here, which makes them lean Republican. Another factor may be that the GOP is pro-patriarchy, also appealing to social conservatives.  

And I continue to read that people voting against their personal and community interests, baffling as it is, has a very long history. People tend to make decisions based on emotions first, then back them up with reasons later, rather than the reverse. So, if a candidate makes you feel good, they get your vote. 

[TropicalBeach]

Note on Beto: he's out of the race now, and I never quite understood his appeal. But, a friend in Texas was very pro-Beto, saying she'd seen him at a town hall meeting while running against Ted Cruz, and his charisma filled the room and energized people. Given his extensive travel across Texas doing those town halls, that could explain his appeal, but it didn't come across in the national media, debates, etc, or it didn't for me, anyway.